hanzo-mcp 0.6.13__py3-none-any.whl → 0.7.1__py3-none-any.whl

hanzo_mcp/tools/agent/review_tool.py

@@ -0,0 +1,433 @@
+"""Review tool for agents to request balanced code review from main loop."""
+
+import json
+from typing import Any, Dict, List, Optional, override
+from enum import Enum
+
+from hanzo_mcp.tools.common.base import BaseTool
+from mcp.server.fastmcp import Context as MCPContext
+from mcp.server import FastMCP
+
+
+class ReviewFocus(Enum):
+    """Types of review focus areas."""
+    GENERAL = "general"
+    FUNCTIONALITY = "functionality"
+    READABILITY = "readability"
+    MAINTAINABILITY = "maintainability"
+    TESTING = "testing"
+    DOCUMENTATION = "documentation"
+    ARCHITECTURE = "architecture"
+
+
+class ReviewTool(BaseTool):
+    """Tool for agents to request balanced code review from the main loop."""
+    
+    name = "review"
+    
+    @property
+    @override
+    def description(self) -> str:
+        """Get the tool description."""
+        return """Request a balanced, constructive code review from the main loop.
+
+Unlike the critic tool (which plays devil's advocate), this provides:
+- Objective assessment of code quality
+- Recognition of what's done well
+- Constructive suggestions for improvement
+- Focus on practical concerns
+- No predetermined bias or harsh judgment
+
+Parameters:
+- focus: Review focus area (GENERAL, FUNCTIONALITY, READABILITY, MAINTAINABILITY, TESTING, DOCUMENTATION, ARCHITECTURE)
+- work_description: Clear description of what you've implemented
+- code_snippets: Optional code snippets to review (as a list of strings)
+- file_paths: Optional list of file paths you've modified
+- context: Optional additional context about the implementation
+
+The review will be balanced, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement.
+
+Example:
+review(
+    focus="FUNCTIONALITY",
+    work_description="Implemented auto-import feature for Go files",
+    code_snippets=["func AddImport(file string, importPath string) error { ... }"],
+    file_paths=["/path/to/import_handler.go"],
+    context="This will be used to automatically fix missing imports in Go files"
+)"""
+    
+    async def call(
+        self,
+        ctx: MCPContext,
+        focus: str,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+        context: Optional[str] = None
+    ) -> str:
+        """This is a placeholder - actual implementation happens in AgentTool."""
+        # This tool is handled specially in the agent execution
+        return f"Review requested for: {work_description}"
+    
+    def register(self, server: FastMCP) -> None:
+        """Register the tool with the MCP server."""
+        tool_self = self
+        
+        @server.tool(name=self.name, description=self.description)
+        async def review(
+            ctx: MCPContext,
+            focus: str,
+            work_description: str,
+            code_snippets: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+            file_paths: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+            context: Optional[str] = None
+        ) -> str:
+            return await tool_self.call(
+                ctx,
+                focus,
+                work_description,
+                code_snippets,
+                file_paths,
+                context
+            )
+
+
+class BalancedReviewer:
+    """Provides balanced, constructive code reviews."""
+    
+    def __init__(self):
+        self.review_handlers = {
+            ReviewFocus.GENERAL: self._review_general,
+            ReviewFocus.FUNCTIONALITY: self._review_functionality,
+            ReviewFocus.READABILITY: self._review_readability,
+            ReviewFocus.MAINTAINABILITY: self._review_maintainability,
+            ReviewFocus.TESTING: self._review_testing,
+            ReviewFocus.DOCUMENTATION: self._review_documentation,
+            ReviewFocus.ARCHITECTURE: self._review_architecture,
+        }
+    
+    def review(
+        self,
+        focus: ReviewFocus,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+        context: Optional[str] = None
+    ) -> str:
+        """Perform a balanced code review."""
+        review_func = self.review_handlers.get(focus, self._review_general)
+        return review_func(work_description, code_snippets, file_paths, context)
+    
+    def _review_general(
+        self,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]],
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]],
+        context: Optional[str]
+    ) -> str:
+        """Provide a general balanced review."""
+        response = "📋 GENERAL CODE REVIEW:\n\n"
+        response += f"**Work Reviewed:** {work_description}\n\n"
+        
+        # Positive observations
+        response += "**Positive Aspects:**\n"
+        if "fix" in work_description.lower():
+            response += "✓ Addressing identified issues proactively\n"
+        if "implement" in work_description.lower():
+            response += "✓ Adding new functionality to enhance the system\n"
+        if code_snippets:
+            response += "✓ Code structure appears organized\n"
+        if file_paths and len(file_paths) == 1:
+            response += "✓ Focused changes in a single file (good for reviewability)\n"
+        elif file_paths and len(file_paths) > 1:
+            response += "✓ Comprehensive approach across multiple files\n"
+        
+        # Constructive suggestions
+        response += "\n**Suggestions for Consideration:**\n"
+        response += "• Ensure all edge cases are handled appropriately\n"
+        response += "• Consider adding unit tests if not already present\n"
+        response += "• Verify the changes integrate well with existing code\n"
+        
+        if context:
+            response += f"\n**Context Consideration:**\n{context}\n"
+            response += "→ This context helps understand the implementation choices.\n"
+        
+        # Summary
+        response += "\n**Summary:**\n"
+        response += "The implementation appears sound. Consider the suggestions above to further strengthen the code."
+        
+        return response
+    
+    def _review_functionality(
+        self,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]],
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]],
+        context: Optional[str]
+    ) -> str:
+        """Review functionality aspects."""
+        response = "📋 FUNCTIONALITY REVIEW:\n\n"
+        response += f"**Implementation:** {work_description}\n\n"
+        
+        response += "**Functional Assessment:**\n"
+        
+        # Analyze code snippets if provided
+        if code_snippets:
+            for i, snippet in enumerate(code_snippets, 1):
+                response += f"\nCode Snippet {i}:\n"
+                
+                # Check for function definitions
+                if "func " in snippet or "def " in snippet or "function " in snippet:
+                    response += "✓ Function definition looks properly structured\n"
+                
+                # Check for error handling
+                if "error" in snippet or "err" in snippet or "try" in snippet:
+                    response += "✓ Error handling is present\n"
+                elif "return" in snippet:
+                    response += "• Consider adding error handling if applicable\n"
+                
+                # Check for input validation
+                if "if " in snippet or "check" in snippet.lower():
+                    response += "✓ Input validation appears to be present\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Functional Considerations:**\n"
+        response += "• Does the implementation handle all expected inputs?\n"
+        response += "• Are return values meaningful and consistent?\n"
+        response += "• Is the functionality easily testable?\n"
+        response += "• Does it integrate well with existing features?\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Overall:** The functionality appears to meet the described requirements."
+        
+        return response
+    
+    def _review_readability(
+        self,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]],
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]],
+        context: Optional[str]
+    ) -> str:
+        """Review code readability."""
+        response = "📋 READABILITY REVIEW:\n\n"
+        
+        response += "**Readability Factors:**\n"
+        
+        if code_snippets:
+            total_lines = sum(snippet.count('\n') + 1 for snippet in code_snippets)
+            avg_line_length = sum(len(line) for snippet in code_snippets for line in snippet.split('\n')) / max(total_lines, 1)
+            
+            if avg_line_length < 80:
+                response += "✓ Line lengths are reasonable\n"
+            else:
+                response += "• Some lines might be too long, consider breaking them up\n"
+            
+            # Check naming
+            has_good_names = any(
+                any(word in snippet for word in ['Add', 'Get', 'Set', 'Create', 'Update', 'Delete'])
+                for snippet in code_snippets
+            )
+            if has_good_names:
+                response += "✓ Function/method names appear descriptive\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Readability Suggestions:**\n"
+        response += "• Use meaningful variable and function names\n"
+        response += "• Keep functions focused on a single responsibility\n"
+        response += "• Add comments for complex logic sections\n"
+        response += "• Maintain consistent indentation and formatting\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Overall:** Code readability appears acceptable with room for minor improvements."
+        
+        return response
+    
+    def _review_maintainability(
+        self,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]],
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]],
+        context: Optional[str]
+    ) -> str:
+        """Review maintainability aspects."""
+        response = "📋 MAINTAINABILITY REVIEW:\n\n"
+        
+        response += "**Maintainability Factors:**\n"
+        
+        # Check file organization
+        if file_paths:
+            if len(file_paths) == 1:
+                response += "✓ Changes are localized to a single file\n"
+            else:
+                response += "✓ Changes are logically distributed across files\n"
+        
+        # Check for modularity in code
+        if code_snippets:
+            function_count = sum(
+                snippet.count('func ') + snippet.count('def ') + snippet.count('function ')
+                for snippet in code_snippets
+            )
+            if function_count > 0:
+                response += "✓ Code is broken into functions/methods\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Maintainability Considerations:**\n"
+        response += "• Is the code modular and reusable?\n"
+        response += "• Are dependencies clearly defined?\n"
+        response += "• Will future developers understand the intent?\n"
+        response += "• Is the code structured to allow easy updates?\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Recommendations:**\n"
+        response += "• Consider extracting common patterns into utilities\n"
+        response += "• Ensure consistent patterns across the codebase\n"
+        response += "• Document any non-obvious design decisions\n"
+        
+        return response
+    
+    def _review_testing(
+        self,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]],
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]],
+        context: Optional[str]
+    ) -> str:
+        """Review testing aspects."""
+        response = "📋 TESTING REVIEW:\n\n"
+        
+        has_test_files = any("test" in str(path).lower() for path in (file_paths or []))
+        
+        if has_test_files:
+            response += "✓ Test files are included with the changes\n\n"
+        else:
+            response += "⚠️ No test files detected in the changes\n\n"
+        
+        response += "**Testing Checklist:**\n"
+        response += "□ Unit tests for new functions\n"
+        response += "□ Integration tests for feature interactions\n"
+        response += "□ Edge case coverage\n"
+        response += "□ Error condition testing\n"
+        response += "□ Performance tests (if applicable)\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Testing Recommendations:**\n"
+        response += "• Write tests that document expected behavior\n"
+        response += "• Include both positive and negative test cases\n"
+        response += "• Ensure tests are maintainable and clear\n"
+        response += "• Aim for good coverage of critical paths\n"
+        
+        if not has_test_files:
+            response += "\n💡 Consider adding tests to ensure reliability and prevent regressions."
+        
+        return response
+    
+    def _review_documentation(
+        self,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]],
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]],
+        context: Optional[str]
+    ) -> str:
+        """Review documentation aspects."""
+        response = "📋 DOCUMENTATION REVIEW:\n\n"
+        
+        # Check for documentation in code
+        has_comments = False
+        if code_snippets:
+            has_comments = any(
+                '//' in snippet or '/*' in snippet or '#' in snippet or '"""' in snippet
+                for snippet in code_snippets
+            )
+        
+        if has_comments:
+            response += "✓ Code includes some documentation\n"
+        else:
+            response += "• Consider adding documentation comments\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Documentation Guidelines:**\n"
+        response += "• Document the 'why' not just the 'what'\n"
+        response += "• Include examples for complex functions\n"
+        response += "• Document any assumptions or limitations\n"
+        response += "• Keep documentation up-to-date with code changes\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Recommended Documentation:**\n"
+        response += "• Function/method purpose and parameters\n"
+        response += "• Complex algorithm explanations\n"
+        response += "• API usage examples\n"
+        response += "• Configuration requirements\n"
+        
+        return response
+    
+    def _review_architecture(
+        self,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]],
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]],
+        context: Optional[str]
+    ) -> str:
+        """Review architectural aspects."""
+        response = "📋 ARCHITECTURE REVIEW:\n\n"
+        
+        response += "**Architectural Considerations:**\n"
+        
+        # Analyze file structure
+        if file_paths:
+            # Check for separation of concerns
+            has_separation = len(set(str(p).split('/')[-2] for p in file_paths if '/' in str(p))) > 1
+            if has_separation:
+                response += "✓ Changes span multiple modules (good separation)\n"
+            else:
+                response += "✓ Changes are cohesive within a module\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Architectural Principles:**\n"
+        response += "• Single Responsibility - Each component has one clear purpose\n"
+        response += "• Open/Closed - Open for extension, closed for modification\n"
+        response += "• Dependency Inversion - Depend on abstractions, not concretions\n"
+        response += "• Interface Segregation - Keep interfaces focused and minimal\n"
+        
+        response += "\n**Questions to Consider:**\n"
+        response += "• Does this fit well with the existing architecture?\n"
+        response += "• Are the right abstractions in place?\n"
+        response += "• Is the coupling between components appropriate?\n"
+        response += "• Will this scale as requirements grow?\n"
+        
+        if context:
+            response += f"\n**Context Impact:**\n{context}\n"
+            response += "→ Ensure the architectural choices align with this context.\n"
+        
+        return response
+
+
+class ReviewProtocol:
+    """Protocol for review interactions."""
+    
+    def __init__(self):
+        self.reviewer = BalancedReviewer()
+        self.review_count = 0
+        self.max_reviews = 3  # Allow up to 3 reviews per task
+    
+    def request_review(
+        self,
+        focus: str,
+        work_description: str,
+        code_snippets: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+        file_paths: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+        context: Optional[str] = None
+    ) -> str:
+        """Request a balanced review."""
+        if self.review_count >= self.max_reviews:
+            return "📋 Review limit reached. You've received comprehensive feedback - time to finalize your implementation."
+        
+        self.review_count += 1
+        
+        try:
+            focus_enum = ReviewFocus[focus.upper()]
+        except KeyError:
+            focus_enum = ReviewFocus.GENERAL
+        
+        review = self.reviewer.review(
+            focus_enum,
+            work_description,
+            code_snippets,
+            file_paths,
+            context
+        )
+        
+        header = f"Review {self.review_count}/{self.max_reviews} (Focus: {focus_enum.value}):\n\n"
+        footer = "\n\n💡 This is a balanced review - consider both strengths and suggestions."
+        
+        return header + review + footer